MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910465042 · doi:10.1002/eat.22991

Perceptions of male partner pressure to be thin and pornography use: Associations with eating disorder symptomatology in a community sample of adult women

2019· article· en· W2910465042 on OpenAlexaff
Tracy L. Tylka, Rachel M. Calogero

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPornographyPerceptionClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySample (material)Eating disorders

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Partner-specific factors have been neglected in eating disorder (ED) research. The present study examined two partner-specific variables that were hypothesized to be linked to women's ED symptoms: perceived male partner thinness-related pressures and pornography use. METHOD: Community women (N = 409) in relationships with men completed online anonymous measures of ED symptomatology, perceptions of male partner thinness-related pressure and pornography use, and thin-ideal internalization. RESULTS: Partner thinness-related pressure was related to higher ED symptomatology, adjusting for age and thinness-related pressures from media, friends, and family. Current and previous partner pornography use were related to higher ED symptomatology, adjusting for age and women's reports of being bothered by this use. Partner thinness-related pressure and previous partner pornography use were associated with ED symptomatology both directly and through thin-ideal internalization, whereas current partner pornography use was directly associated with ED symptomatology. DISCUSSION: Perceptions of male partner thinness-related pressure and pornography use constitute unique factors associated with women's ED symptomatology that may operate indirectly by positioning women to endorse thinness as a personal standard and directly (e.g., by trying to accommodate their partner's appearance preferences). This study's findings provide initial support for pursuing subsequent investigations to test these partner variables as ED risk factors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207